Pielke Senior on the Borenstein AP statistics article

Comments On AP Story “Statistics Experts Reject Global Cooling Claims”

There is a news report titled “Statistics experts reject global cooling claims” by Seth Borenstein which appeared today.

The article reads

“WASHINGTON — The Earth is still warming, not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming, according to an analysis of global temperatures by independent statistics experts.

The review of years of temperature data was conducted at the request of The Associated Press. Talk of a cooling trend has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years.

The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time. And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping.

Global warming skeptics are basing their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. They say that since then, temperatures have fallen — thus, a cooling trend. But it’s not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, dropped again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998.

“The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”

Statisticians said the ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.”

This article, however, (which is not a true independent assessment if the study was completed by NOAA scientists)  is not based on the much more robust metric assessment of global warming as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content. Nor does it consider the warm bias issues with respect to surface land temperatures that we have raised in our peer reviewed papers; e.g. see and see.

With respect to ocean heat content changes, as summarized in the articles

Ellis et al. 1978: The annual variation in the global heat balance of the Earth. J. Climate. 83, 1958-1962.

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55

and

Douglass, D.H. and R. Knox, 2009: Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. Physics letters A

trends and anomolies in the upper ocean heat content permit a quantitative assessment of the radiative imbalance of the climate system.

Jim Hansen agrees on the use of the upper ocean heat content as an important diagnostic of global warming.   Jim Hansen in 2005 discussed this subject (see). In Jim’s write-up, he stated

“The Willis et al. measured heat storage of 0.62 W/m2 refers to the decadal mean for the upper 750 m of the ocean. Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean. The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2, includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.

Certainly the energy imbalance is less in earlier years, even negative, especially in years following large volcanic eruptions. Our analysis focused on the past decade because: (1) this is the period when it was predicted that, in the absence of a large volcanic eruption, the increasing greenhouse effect would cause the planetary energy imbalance and ocean heat storage to rise above the level of natural variability (Hansen et al., 1997), and (2) improved ocean temperature measurements and precise satellite altimetry yield an uncertainty in the ocean heat storage, ~15% of the observed value, smaller than that of earlier times when unsampled regions of the ocean created larger uncertainty.”

As discussed on my weblog and elsewhere (e.g. see and see), the upper ocean heat content trend, as evaluated by its heat anomalies, has been essentially flat since mid 2003 through at least June of this year.  Since mid 2003, the heat storage rate, rather then being 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750m that was found prior to that time (1993-2003), has been essentially zero.

Nonetheless, the article is correct that the climate system has not cooled even in the last 6 years. Moreover, on the long time period back to 1880, the consensus is that the climate system has warmed on the longest time period. Perhaps the current absence of warming is a shorter term natural feature of the climate system.  However, to state that the “[t]he Earth is still warming” is in error. The warming has, at least temporarily halted.

The article (and apparently the NOAA study itself), therefore, suffers from a significant oversight since it does not comment on an update of the same upper ocean heat content data that Jim Hansen has used to assess global warming.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

193 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cassandra King
October 27, 2009 1:49 am

So to find warming in a cooling climate?
Well first lets take another ‘look’ at the data shall we? Lets put this data through our super special data smoothing and cleaning algorerythem and then weld this data onto Briffas one tree yamal proxy and hand the results to Hansen who will adjust this product to reflect certain ‘realities’, after all this give the data to Mann who will then construct the finest most scary hockystick imagineable that proves beyond denial the planet is actually on fire and completely underwater.

Hans Erren
October 27, 2009 1:55 am

typo in thread title, should read Borenstein.
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbstealey, moderator]

Alvin
October 27, 2009 1:56 am

The agenda of that article was obvious.

Ben
October 27, 2009 1:57 am

O/T but you might be interested to know that the Met Office has published another of its famous seasonal forecasts. And there’s no surprise – we’re in for a “mild winter”
One interesting comment from the article – from a climate scientist at the Met Office: “long-term forecasts were difficult to make”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6439469/Mild-winter-forecast-as-part-of-El-Nino-effect.html

PeterT
October 27, 2009 1:58 am

>>And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping<<
Surly we can all agree on that.

JimB
October 27, 2009 1:59 am

You have to wonder what AP’s motivation was?…
Perhaps something to do with Copenhagen?…maybe?…
JimB

Trev
October 27, 2009 2:01 am

We are being asked to give up meat (and presumably kill millions of cows) to ‘save the planet’.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece
Stern is not a climatologist, not even a scientist. He is an economist. As someone in the comments says, a leading authority on how to tax people.

Lulo
October 27, 2009 2:20 am

A clear, unbiased assessment from the man who writes some of the most advanced climatology textbooks, and hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles that are not tilted toward a desired result. A breath of fresh air. I’ll believe the Earth is still warming when Dr. Pielke says so.

Barry Foster
October 27, 2009 2:36 am

OT. I don’t know if anyone else is keeping an eye on this (I do) but there is some serious fiddling going on with the CET at the Met Office http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
They keep changing the anomaly for October. By that I mean, when it was 11.3 they said the anomaly was -0.3. Now it’s 11.4 they’re saying it’s +0.4! They started this at the beginning of the month with a figure of about 12, saying that was something like +0.3. It then changed a few times and I contacted them asking them what the hell was going on and were they making it up as they went along. No one replied. With analysis like this they’ll be able to say the year’s anomaly was whatever they want it to be! The CET is already unrepresentative as it is, but making up the data is surely too much even for the Met Office? Can anyone else email them as obviously they don’t like my emails: enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk

Another Ian
October 27, 2009 2:38 am

This is on Tips and Notes and might be relevant
“E.M.Smith (23:42:41) :
It looks like GHCN, and thus GIStemp (and thus the world…) use all of
4 thermometers in California
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
And three of them are in southern California (Santa Maria, LA, San Diego).
The only Northern California thermometer is in San Francisco.
That is why we had a “115 year record heat”, there are no thermometers measuring the cold an snowy mountains.”
There is more interesting reading re the rest of USA too. And won’t these sites have been used to back-adjust previous temperatures?

Diogenes
October 27, 2009 2:38 am

I wonder why AP chose not to sully their article with any actual graphs?
This piece is the best example of argumentum ad verecundiam that you could wish to see, truly text book stuff.
Just hide the evidence from people’s eyes and tell them what they would see if they were qualified to look.

October 27, 2009 2:39 am

“trends and anomolies in the upper ocean heat content permits”
should read
“trends and anomalies in the upper ocean heat content permit”
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs, mod.]

October 27, 2009 2:43 am

The AP article carefully avoids mentioning a single paramount fact:
ALL warmists’ models and predictions have failed.
Nobody in his right mind will believe them crying wolf once more.

ATD
October 27, 2009 3:00 am

Surely the point is not particularly whether the temperature trend is broadly flat, or in mild decline; it’s the point that, on any reasonable statistical analysis, the argument for a significantly rising trend become weaker as the “flat” period extends.
The UK Met office, for example, is arguing that on their models about 1 in eight ten year period fails to show an increase in temperature (implying that 7 out of eight randomly selected will show an increase). Now, on a very simplistic model, I make that that if the trend extends to 12-13 years (i.e in approx 2012), at 95% confidence, the hypothesis that there IS an underlying rising trend has to be rejected.
Incidentally this – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/breaking-records/.
– which is certainly not a sceptics analysis seems to come to a similar conclusion.
Any reasonably heavyweight statisticians out there to work this thoroughly?
It’s also be interesting to estimate how hot it’ll have to get in the next 2-3 years to justify even the lower bands of the IPCC forcasts…..

Richard
October 27, 2009 3:01 am

Dr Pielke thank you for pointing out that even as per the NOAA data there has been no warming in the past decade.
The NOAA data is suspect on a number of grounds. Even if we ignore 1998, as per the satellite data, and even the HADCRUT data, since 2002 at least, there has been a downward trend in the temperature.
In the article linked above, Ken Caldeira, climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford says “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous”
On this:
1. It is NOT the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years. It is only the hottest decade if you fraudulently remove the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Optimum from the paleontology records.
2. Even if were the hottest decade as claimed, why is it ridiculous? Why can not global cooling start at the end of any warming?
In 1990 the IPCC stated “..A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.
This is utterly crucial. They have specifically given a reason why it was not possible to attribute a specific proportion of the current warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.
To overcome this reason they have to either explain the reasons for the past warmings OR remove the past warmings from the record. Since they have failed in the former they have fraudulently tried to do the latter. Hence the fierce battle over the temperature records and proxies spanning the Medieval Warm period.
Thank you for your post. Thank you for soldiering on. “In times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell

Richard
October 27, 2009 3:02 am

my posts keep getting swallowed

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
October 27, 2009 3:06 am

Looking at past trends is an expensive fool’s game. Ask any roulette player.

October 27, 2009 3:19 am

The AP’s “independent analysis” fails to even list what records their “statisticians” looked at, over what time frame those records were “analyzed” for any trend, and what “trend” (certainly a linear positive one!) they “wanted to get!
BIAS.

Midwest Mark
October 27, 2009 3:37 am

JimB:
I’m with you. Public support for AGW has been declining as the number of record cold temperatures around the globe have been increasing. Obviously the AGW crowd is desperately ringing the alarm bell again, trying to resuscitate their flagging support, and the timing couldn’t be better (for Copenhagen).

Richard
October 27, 2009 3:38 am

Ben (01:57:27) : O/T but you might be interested to know that the Met Office has published another of its famous seasonal forecasts. And there’s no surprise – we’re in for a “mild winter”
I couldnt find it on the Met Office Site. This is what I found on their forecast:
“Preliminary indications continue to suggest that winter temperatures are likely to be near or above average over much of Europe including the UK. Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year for the UK, but there is still a 1 in 7 chance of a cold winter. (they have given themselves an out)
..As you would expect, temperatures can vary quite widely over the winter. So we take an average for the whole season and measure against that. The UK average for December to February from 1971-2000 is 3.7 °C.”
Note that and lets see.

AlanG
October 27, 2009 3:43 am

Well, my temperature anomaly right now is +2.16F or +1.2C (100.76F or 28.2C). I can’t blame it on ENSO or the seasonal flu because I had the vaccination 3 weeks ago. Yes folks, it’s swine flu. I’m taking Tamilfu and Augmentin which has stabilized me. Not much fun but it feels pretty much like normal flu.

UK Sceptic
October 27, 2009 3:43 am

AP – Assinine Paranoia?

P Wilson
October 27, 2009 3:46 am

Barry Foster (02:36:47)
When writing to the Met Office, its advisable to avoid any adjectives, criticisms or accusations. Pose the facts, and the anomalies and they would probably reply.

Vincent
October 27, 2009 3:51 am

The article mentions talk of cooling that has been spreading on the internet. These seditious rumours must be crushed without delay.
And what were the temperature datasets they used in this study? Wasn’t there one that GISS recently adjusted upwards? It was reported on WUWT about a month ago. That clearly gave a slight warming trend. I think it was a thermometer based surface temperature record. It should be obvious that is the one they used, but it would be useful if they referenced the actual datasets.

JamesG
October 27, 2009 4:14 am

In other news house prices are still officially rising because they haven’t yet dropped back to their previously low levels.

1 2 3 8